Does Celsius Holdings Inc. (CELH) have an economic moat?

MoatScan AI rates Celsius Holdings Inc. (CELH) 34/100 for moat strength, assessed across five sources of competitive advantage: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages and efficient scale. Celsius Holdings has built a meaningful but still limited competitive position in energy drinks by owning the better-for-you, zero-sugar niche better than most peers.

What is Celsius Holdings Inc.'s moat score?

Celsius Holdings Inc. (CELH) has a moat score of 34/100. The score is a weighted average of five pillar ratings: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages, and efficient scale. A higher score means the competitive advantages MoatScan AI identifies are wider and more durable.

Is CELH stock overvalued or undervalued?

MoatScan AI answers this by estimating CELH's intrinsic value with a discounted cash flow (DCF) model, then comparing that estimate to the current market price. A share price meaningfully below the estimate is flagged undervalued; meaningfully above it, overvalued. The estimate updates with each new financial analysis.

What is Celsius Holdings Inc.'s fair value estimate?

MoatScan AI derives Celsius Holdings Inc.'s (CELH) fair value per share from a discounted cash flow (DCF) model built on the company's reported financials, analyst growth forecasts, and a discount rate reflecting its cost of capital. The Financial Analysis tab shows the estimate alongside every assumption behind it.

Back to Database

CELH$24.51

Celsius Holdings Inc.

Last Updated

Aug 22, 20266 days ago

Moat & Trend

Management

AI Impact

Competitive Radar

Moat Score

34/100

Executive Summary

Celsius Holdings has built a meaningful but still limited competitive position in energy drinks by owning the better-for-you, zero-sugar niche better than most peers. The brand has benefited from strong consumer resonance, broad retail distribution, and PepsiCo’s scale, which together have turned Celsius from a small challenger into a major share taker. Its largest strengths are brand relevance, product positioning, and a distribution footprint that would be difficult for a new entrant to replicate quickly. However, the category is crowded, switching costs are minimal, and rival brands can imitate key attributes. The moat is therefore real, but not fortress-like. The pending Alani Nu acquisition could deepen its consumer base and extend the platform, supporting a positive moat trend even if durability remains narrower than that of the largest beverage franchises.

Network Effects

Limited Ecosystem Reinforcement

Pillar Strength

2/10

Celsius does not benefit from a classic network effect because the product’s value does not meaningfully rise as more consumers use it. Some ecosystem reinforcement exists through social media buzz, athlete endorsements, campus ambassadors, and retailer attention, which can make the brand feel more ubiquitous as awareness grows. But those are marketing feedback loops, not self-reinforcing network economics. Consumers do not gain direct utility from other consumers being on the platform, and retailers can multi-home the category easily by stocking many competing energy drinks. The brand can compound awareness, but that is not the same as a durable network advantage.

Switching Costs

Easy Category Switching

Pillar Strength

2.5/10

Consumers can switch between Celsius, Monster, Red Bull, Alani Nu, Ghost, and private-label alternatives with essentially no inconvenience. The beverage is low-ticket, purchased frequently, and selected largely on taste, caffeine level, and perceived health profile rather than long-term contracts or technical integration. Retailers also face minimal disruption in swapping shelf allocation among brands because assortment changes are routine in convenience, grocery, and club channels. Celsius does have some behavioral stickiness from repeat habit formation and brand preference, but that is weaker than true switching costs. The company therefore earns only a small score here, reflecting usage inertia rather than meaningful lock-in.

Intangible Assets

Strong Emerging Brand

Pillar Strength

7/10

Celsius’s most credible moat source is its brand. It has become one of the leading names in the better-for-you energy drink segment, with a distinct health-conscious positioning that resonates with younger consumers and differentiates it from legacy energy brands. That positioning has been amplified by broad distribution, athlete and influencer marketing, and the company’s association with zero-sugar functionality. The brand is not legally exclusive in the way a patent or license would be, and rivals can imitate the functional promise. Even so, the combination of recognition, consumer trust, and a clear niche gives Celsius a durable intangible asset that supports pricing and trial better than most beverage challengers.

Cost Advantages

Distribution Scale Benefits

Pillar Strength

4/10

Celsius has some cost advantages from scale, but they are not yet deep enough to create a decisive structural edge. PepsiCo’s investment and distribution support materially improve route-to-market efficiency and retail penetration, which lowers the cost of national expansion relative to a self-distributed challenger. As volumes rise, marketing and overhead can also be spread over a larger base. Still, the company is not a low-cost manufacturer with proprietary inputs, and large beverage competitors have their own scale, bottling networks, and procurement leverage. The cost gap is therefore modest and contestable. It helps Celsius compete, but it does not make the company structurally cheaper to operate than the biggest incumbents.

Efficient Scale

Crowded Oligopoly Market

Pillar Strength

1.5/10

Energy drinks are not a natural monopoly, and Celsius operates in a market dominated by a few large national brands rather than a structurally protected niche with limited room for entrants. Monster and Red Bull remain formidable, while newer brands and private-label offerings continue to proliferate. Retailers can stock multiple brands with little economic penalty, so scale does not restrict competition in the way it might in utilities, rail, or other natural monopolies. Celsius has achieved meaningful scale for a challenger, but the category is still large enough to support several serious players. That means the company benefits more from competition than from efficient-scale protection, leaving this pillar weak.

Moat Type & Trend

Why this company earns its moat rating, and where the moat is heading

Moat Type

Narrow Moat

Trend

Positive

Why This Rating

Celsius has a real advantage, but it is still centered on a fast-growing brand rather than a moat that would be hard for large beverage competitors to challenge in 20 years. What should endure is a credible better-for-you identity, strong retailer visibility, and broad distribution support that keeps the brand relevant beyond a single fad cycle. What should not be assumed is permanent pricing power or category insulation: energy drinks remain highly contestable, and rivals can copy flavor profiles, zero-sugar positioning, and marketing themes. That makes the edge durable enough to matter, but not deep enough to justify a wider classification.

Why This Trend

The moat is improving because Celsius is still converting distribution into shelf presence and household penetration, while the Alani Nu acquisition should deepen its position in the better-for-you energy segment. Pepsi’s support has materially expanded availability, and the brand has kept gaining relevance with younger, health-conscious consumers. The trend would turn stable or negative if shelf space stops expanding, if consumer trial decelerates after promo-heavy growth, or if Monster, Red Bull, and private label begin taking back share in zero-sugar energy. Sustained share gains in Celsius’s core segment remain the key signpost.

Management Quality Assessment

Evaluating leadership track record, capital allocation, and governance

Verdict

Competent

John Fieldly has run Celsius as CEO since 2018 after serving as CFO, so leadership has been internally promoted rather than founder-led and has provided continuity through a period of rapid scaling. The company’s ROIC remains strong at roughly 19% versus a WACC near 9%, and management has used acquisitions to widen the portfolio and secure manufacturing capacity, alongside a $300 million buyback authorization. However, the large Alani Nu deal has been followed by SKU rationalization and a pause in innovation, showing integration strain. CEO ownership is modest at about 0.37%, compensation is high at roughly $9.6 million, and a past SEC accounting issue over stock-based compensation is a governance blemish.

Key Highlights

John Fieldly has been CEO since April 2018 and previously served as CFO, giving Celsius nearly a decade of continuity under an internally promoted finance executive rather than a founder-operator.
Capital allocation has been value-accretive on paper: Celsius reports ROIC around 19.3% versus WACC near 9.1%, and management approved a $300 million share-repurchase program while funding growth.
M&A has been strategic, including Func Food, Big Beverages, and the much larger Alani Nu acquisition; the upside is portfolio breadth and supply-chain control, but integration has required SKU rationalization and a pause in innovation.
CEO insider ownership is modest at roughly 0.37%, so alignment is present but not especially strong; the latest compensation package of about $9.6 million looks rich relative to recent operating volatility.
The board is mostly independent, but the company has had an SEC accounting issue tied to stock-based compensation modifications, which is a meaningful governance red flag.

AI Impact Assessment

Evaluating how AI strengthens or disrupts existing moat pillars

AI Opportunity

5/ 10

AI Threat

5/ 10

Net AI Impact

0Neutral

Net Pressure. Celsius’s moat still rests mainly on brand, shelf presence, and distribution access, while AI is most relevant in back-office execution rather than in creating a new structural advantage. Management has explicitly added a Chief Business Transformation Officer to support enterprise-wide AI adoption, and the company is applying AI to demand forecasting, assortment, trade-spend optimization, and market sensing. Those tools can improve speed and margin discipline, but they are broadly replicable and do not by themselves deepen consumer lock-in. The main uncertainty is whether Celsius’s multi-brand data and Pepsi-linked route-to-market generate enough proprietary signal to outpace rivals before competitors and retailers adopt similar analytics.

AI Opportunity Highlights

AI can improve demand forecasting and assortment decisions using Celsius’s own sell-through data across Celsius, Alani Nu, and Rockstar.
Trade-spend optimization can raise promotional ROI in a category where retailer execution and promotion efficiency matter.
Market-sensing models can help Celsius react faster to flavor, pack, and channel shifts across convenience and grocery.
Enterprise AI adoption may reduce inventory and working-capital inefficiency as the company shifts more volume through distribution centers.

AI Threat Highlights

AI lowers the cost of category analytics and promotion planning for larger beverage rivals, reducing Celsius’s execution edge.
Private-label and retailer-owned brands can use AI to speed product selection and launch lower-priced energy drink substitutes.
Generative tools make flavor ideation, packaging, and marketing content easier to copy, compressing differentiation around brand refreshes.
Retailers and distributors can use AI to optimize shelf space and trade terms, increasing bargaining pressure on branded suppliers.

Sign in to see the full analysis

The Strategic Factor Breakdown, Management Quality Assessment, and AI Impact Assessment are available to registered users — it's free.

Last Updated

Aug 6, 202622 days ago

Target Price

Analyst Consensus

FAIR VALUE

Financial Strength

Financial Score

66/100

Executive Summary

Celsius Holdings’ standout strength is its powerful top-line expansion, with revenue accelerating sharply over the past several years and analysts still expecting further growth. Profitability has also improved meaningfully: gross margin has widened, operating margins have moved from losses to healthy double digits, and operating cash flow has remained strong, supporting positive free cash flow even as capex rose modestly. However, the financial profile is less uniformly strong beneath the surface. Net income has been volatile, balance-sheet leverage and liabilities increased materially in FY2025, and tangible equity is deeply negative due to a heavy intangible asset base. Liquidity remains adequate but has weakened, with cash declining and receivables rising, while efficiency ratios have softened from prior peaks. Overall, Celsius presents a high-growth but somewhat uneven financial profile, with strong operating momentum tempered by balance-sheet and earnings-quality risks, broadly consistent with its mid-to-high single-digit ratings.

Income Statement

Revenue · Margins · Profitability

Section Score

7/10

Celsius shows strong top-line momentum, with revenue surging from FY22 to FY25 and the TTM period exceeding the latest full year, suggesting growth is still accelerating. Gross margin has expanded materially over the period and operating margin has moved from losses to healthy double digits, showing better operating leverage. That said, net income has been volatile: it peaked in FY23, then declined in FY24 and FY25 before recovering in TTM, indicating bottom-line conversion is less stable than sales growth. Earnings quality is clouded by a large other expense in FY25 and rising interest costs, which look more like one-offs or financing noise than core operating weakness. Relative to branded beverage peers, the profile is strong but not yet fully consistent, with execution and cost control still key risks.

Financials are in millions USD unless otherwise specified

Metric	TTM	FY 2025	FY 2024	FY 2023	FY 2022
Period Ending	Mar 31, 2026	Dec 31, 2025	Dec 31, 2024	Dec 31, 2023	Dec 31, 2022
Revenue	2,968.608	2,515.269	1,355.63	1,318.014	653.604
Revenue Growth	18.02%	85.54%	2.85%	101.65%	—
Net Income	173.679	107.999	145.074	226.801	-187.282
Net Income Growth	60.82%	-25.56%	-36.03%	221.10%	—

Data as of Mar 31, 2026

Balance Sheet

Assets · Liabilities · Equity

Section Score

6/10

Celsius shows adequate near-term liquidity, with current assets of $1.81 billion versus current liabilities of $1.08 billion in FY2025 and working capital of $732 million, though both cash and the composition of current assets weakened: cash fell to $399 million from $890 million while receivables rose sharply to $755 million. Solvency remains manageable, but leverage increased materially after total debt reached $670 million and total liabilities climbed to $2.18 billion from $542 million a year earlier. Shareholders’ equity also expanded to $2.94 billion, which is positive, but tangible book value turned deeply negative at $(1.13) billion, indicating a heavy intangible asset base and a less conservative balance sheet structure.

Financials are in millions USD unless otherwise specified

Metric	Current	FY 2025	FY 2024	FY 2023	FY 2022	FY 2021
Period Ending	Mar 31, 2026	Dec 31, 2025	Dec 31, 2024	Dec 31, 2023	Dec 31, 2022	Dec 31, 2021
Total Current Assets	1,864.278	1,811.154	1,324.58	1,204.904	917.971	—
Total Assets	5,157.593	5,119.621	1,766.881	1,536.396	1,222.069	—
Total Current Liabilities	1,051.333	1,078.726	365.535	276.613	161.295	—
Total Liabilities	2,146.856	2,178.179	542.464	447.868	357.49	—

Data as of Mar 31, 2026

Cash Flow Statement

Operations · Investing · Financing

Section Score

6.5/10

Celsius shows strong operating cash generation, with CFO rising from $108.2m in FY2022 to $359.4m in FY2025, while TTM CFO was still solid at $329.8m but below the latest FY. Free cash flow remained positive and improved to $323.4m in FY2025, supported by modest capex that increased from $8.3m to $36.1m as the business reinvested. However, cash quality is less smooth than the headline numbers suggest: working capital moved sharply, especially inventory and other working capital, and FY2025 investing cash flow plunged to -$1.3bn, likely reflecting a major acquisition or investment. Financing activity was heavy, including $900m of debt issuance, buybacks, and dividends, which makes capital allocation look more aggressive than conservative.

Financials are in millions USD unless otherwise specified

Metric	TTM	FY 2025	FY 2024	FY 2023	FY 2022
Period Ending	Mar 31, 2026	Dec 31, 2025	Dec 31, 2024	Dec 31, 2023	Dec 31, 2022
Operating Cash Flow	329.798	359.442	262.898	141.218	108.182
Operating Cash Flow Growth	-8.25%	36.72%	86.16%	30.54%	—
Free Cash Flow	292.759	323.375	239.508	123.785	99.918
Free Cash Flow Growth	-9.47%	35.02%	93.49%	23.89%	—

Data as of Mar 31, 2026

Key Ratios

Liquidity · Leverage · Efficiency · Returns

Section Score

6/10

Celsius shows very strong short-term liquidity, with current and quick ratios still far above normal levels, but both have declined sharply over the period, especially in TTM, which suggests less cushion than in prior years. Leverage remains modest overall, though debt-to-equity has risen from near zero to a still-manageable 0.22, so balance-sheet risk is not high. Efficiency has weakened: asset turnover has fallen from 0.86 in FY2023 to 0.49 in FY2025, indicating slower use of assets to generate revenue. Profitability remains positive, but margins and returns have compressed materially from the FY2023 peak. Gross margin is stable near 50%, while operating margin, ROE, and ROA have all trended down.

Ratios are dimensionless unless otherwise noted

Metric	Current	FY 2025	FY 2024	FY 2023	FY 2022
Period Ending	—	Dec 31, 2025	Dec 31, 2024	Dec 31, 2023	Dec 31, 2022
Current Ratio	167.898	167.898	362.367	435.592	569.126
Quick Ratio	136.592	136.592	326.484	352.705	461.689
Profit Margin	4.29%	4.29%	10.70%	17.21%	-28.65%
After Tax ROE	9.14%	9.14%	36.27%	85.90%	-467.14%
Return on Assets	3.37%	2.11%	8.21%	14.76%	-15.32%
Debt to Equity	0.22	0.23	0.02	0	0
P/E Ratio	57.08	381.17	36.58	113.58	—
Forward P/E	12.45	30.67	27.25	55.25	99.01

Data as of Dec 31, 2025

Growth

Revenue · EPS · Valuation · Estimates

Section Score

7.5/10

Celsius shows a clear growth inflection: revenue surged from 0.65B USD to 1.32B USD, slowed sharply to 1.36B USD, then re-accelerated to 2.52B USD before analysts model continued expansion to 3.30B USD and 3.61B USD. That pattern suggests a strong recovery followed by steadier compounding rather than another explosive step-up. EPS has been more volatile, moving from a loss to profit, then easing, before the forward profile points to a rebound in FY 2026 and further improvement in FY 2027. Revenue growth is expected to outpace EPS growth in the near term, implying margin pressure early in the forecast. Sentiment is constructive: Buy consensus, 21 analysts, and a stable Strong Buy/Buy skew with limited Hold interest.

Analyst Price Targets

Low$39+59.12%

Median$50+104.00%

Average$54.33+121.68%

High$85+246.80%

BuyConsensus rating based on analyst coverage

21 analysts

Recommendation Trends

Rating	Aug '26	Jul '26	Jun '26	May '26
Strong Buy	7	7	7	6
Buy	13	13	13	12
Hold	3	3	3	4
Sell	0	0	0	0
Strong Sell	0	0	0	0
Total	23	23	23	22

Forecast · Analyst Estimates

Revenue This Year3.30B

+31.06%from 2.52B

FY 2026

Revenue Next Year3.61B

+9.44%from 3.30B

FY 2027

EPS This Year· non-GAAP adj.1.61

+19.79%

FY 2026

EPS Next Year· non-GAAP adj.1.97

+22.86%

FY 2027

Historical · Reported Actuals

Metric	FY 2025	FY 2024	FY 2023	FY 2022
Revenue	2.52B	1.36B	1.32B	0.65B
Revenue Growth	+85.54%	+2.85%	+101.65%	—
EPS (GAAP diluted)	0.25	0.45	0.77	-0.88
EPS Growth	-44.44%	-41.56%	+187.50%	—

Revenue in USD · EPS per share · Price targets in USD

Data as of Dec 31, 2025 · Forecast EPS is analyst non-GAAP adjusted; historical EPS is GAAP diluted — not directly comparable.

Fair Value Estimation

DCF · +516.9% Margin of Safety · Undervalued

AI Fair Value Estimate (DCF)

$151.2vs$24.51

Margin of Safety+516.9%

Undervalued — Margin of safety detected

Celsius has a clear growth runway with positive EBITDA and a structured march toward materially higher operating cash generation, so a 10-year discounted cash flow framework best captures the transition from today’s thin margins to a much larger branded-beverage earnings base. The case is especially suited to DCF because cash generation is expected to scale faster than current reported earnings as the business matures and working capital intensity normalizes.

AI Valuation Verdict

A 10-year DCF is appropriate because the business is still in a rapid scaling phase and the value lies in future cash conversion rather than current trailing earnings. Using a 10.7% WACC and 3.9% terminal growth, the model produces a value well above the current share price, driven by rising EBITDA, modest capex intensity, and expanding free cash flow over the forecast horizon. The result is most sensitive to the discount rate and terminal assumptions; a meaningfully higher WACC or slower margin expansion would lower fair value, while faster working-capital normalization or stronger long-term growth would support an even higher estimate.

DCF Assumptions

WACC

10.7%

Weighted avg cost of capital

Revenue Growth (10Y)

35.2%

CAGR assumption

EBITDA Margin

11.4%

Steady-state projection

CapEx / Revenue

1.0%

Capital investment

Terminal Growth

3.9%

Long-run growth rate

Projection Period

10 yrs

Explicit forecast horizon

Projected Cash Flows

Values in millions USD

Year	Revenue	EBITDA	FCF	Discounted FCF
Yr 1	3,854	357	32	29
Yr 2	5,864	682	-179	-147
Yr 3	8,943	1,239	-195	-140
Yr 4	12,780	2,045	467	310
Yr 5	17,688	3,193	790	475
Yr 6	23,647	4,369	1,315	714
Yr 7	31,078	5,869	2,090	1,024
Yr 8	39,742	7,667	2,921	1,293
Yr 9	49,767	9,801	4,117	1,645
Yr 10	61,133	12,283	5,580	2,013
Terminal Value (PV)				30,872

Sign in to see the full analysis

The Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Cash Flow, Key Ratios, Forecast, and Fair Value analysis are available to registered users — it's free.

Last Updated

Aug 13, 2026

Short Term

Medium Term

Long Term

Price Outlook

$27.91Price at Analysis

The path of least resistance remains modestly lower unless CELH can reclaim the $27.95–$28.21 band with improving participation. The most probable near-term move is a continued trade around the current pivot zone, with $27.64 and then $27.37 as the key downside tests and $29.71 the first meaningful upside barrier if momentum stabilizes.

Technical Overview

CELH’s technical picture is split by timeframe, but the longer the horizon, the more bearish the structure becomes. Near term, momentum is mixed: RSI is neutral and price is only modestly below the 20-day average, yet MACD is negative and volume is contracting, limiting follow-through. Medium term, the chart weakens materially as price sits below the 50-day and 200-day moving averages and remains in Death Cross territory. Long term, the stock is still in a pronounced downtrend, far beneath its 200-day average and deep in the lower third of its 52-week range. The most important levels to watch are $27.64/$27.95 in the short term and the broader $29.71–$30.79 resistance band versus $24.64 support below.

Short Term

1 to 4 weeks

Neutral

CELH is trading just below its 20-day moving average and remains caught between nearby daily support and resistance, which limits directional conviction in the 1–4 week window. RSI at 52.2 is neutral, but MACD is slightly bearish and volume is extremely light, suggesting the recent move lacks strong sponsorship even though price is still hovering near the Bollinger middle band.

Key Indicators

Price vs 20-day MA-1.06% below

Price vs 50-day MA-4.20% below

RSI (14-day)52.2

RSI InterpretationNeutral

MACD TrendBearish (below signal)

Bollinger PositionMiddle

Volume TrendContracting

Support

$27.64$27.37$27.22

Resistance

$27.95$28.21$28.48

The closest levels are immediate support at $27.64 and resistance at $27.95, with the daily pivot at $27.79 effectively marking the current battleground. In the 1–4 week window, a test of either side is likely, but $27.64 support appears slightly more relevant unless price can reclaim $27.95 and then $28.21.

Medium Term

1 to 6 months

Bearish

The 1–6 month setup is weak because the stock is below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages and remains in Death Cross territory despite a prior Golden Cross signal earlier in the year. The downtrend and lower-third range position reinforce a defensive medium-term posture, with rallies likely to face overhead supply before trend improvement can take hold.

Key Indicators

Price vs 50-day MA-4.20% below

Price vs 200-day MA-29.01% below

52-Week Range PositionLower third (10%)

Trend DirectionDowntrend

MA Cross SignalDeath Cross territory

Relative Volume0.05x avg

Support

$24.64$24.15$23.07

Resistance

$29.71$30.79$31.28

Weekly support sits much lower at $24.64, $24.15, and $23.07, while resistance begins at $29.71 and extends to $30.79, creating a wide medium-term range. There is notable confluence between the overhead $29.71 area and the monthly pivot zone near $29.98, while the 50-day moving average near the current price remains a nearby reference for failed rebounds.

Long Term

6 months and beyond

Very Bearish

From a 6+ month perspective, CELH remains deeply impaired technically, sitting far below the 200-day moving average and well under its 52-week high. The persistent downtrend, Death Cross territory, and lower-third range position indicate a structurally damaged chart that will need a sustained base-building phase before any durable long-term reversal can be confirmed.

Key Indicators

Price vs 200-day MA-29.01% below

52-Week High$66.74

52-Week Low$23.56

Distance from 52w High-58.2%

BB Bandwidth18.2%

MA CrossoverRecent Golden Cross (112 days ago)

Support

$27.06$25.77$25.25

Resistance

$32.90$33.42$34.71

The monthly structure is bounded by support at $27.06, $25.77, and $25.25, with resistance layered at $32.90, $33.42, and $34.71. Over 6+ months, the market is more likely to probe the lower monthly supports or the 52-week low area before any credible challenge of the upper monthly resistance band or the distant 52-week high.

Sign in to see the full analysis

See the full short, medium & long-term indicator breakdowns and support/resistance levels — free for registered users.

Frequently asked questions about Celsius Holdings Inc.

Does Celsius Holdings Inc. (CELH) have an economic moat?: MoatScan AI rates Celsius Holdings Inc. (CELH) 34/100 for moat strength, assessed across five sources of competitive advantage: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages and efficient scale. Celsius Holdings has built a meaningful but still limited competitive position in energy drinks by owning the better-for-you, zero-sugar niche better than most peers.Sign in free to see the Moat Type verdict and the pillar-by-pillar reasoning.
What is Celsius Holdings Inc.'s moat score?: Celsius Holdings Inc. (CELH) has a moat score of 34/100. The score is a weighted average of five pillar ratings: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages, and efficient scale. A higher score means the competitive advantages MoatScan AI identifies are wider and more durable.Sign in free to see each pillar rating, the Moat Type verdict and the moat trend.
Is CELH stock overvalued or undervalued?: MoatScan AI answers this by estimating CELH's intrinsic value with a discounted cash flow (DCF) model, then comparing that estimate to the current market price. A share price meaningfully below the estimate is flagged undervalued; meaningfully above it, overvalued. The estimate updates with each new financial analysis.Sign in free to see the fair value estimate, the implied upside or downside, and the verdict.
What is Celsius Holdings Inc.'s fair value estimate?: MoatScan AI derives Celsius Holdings Inc.'s (CELH) fair value per share from a discounted cash flow (DCF) model built on the company's reported financials, analyst growth forecasts, and a discount rate reflecting its cost of capital. The Financial Analysis tab shows the estimate alongside every assumption behind it.Sign in free to see the estimate and the full assumptions behind it.

Disclaimer: The analysis on this page is generated by AI and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, investment recommendations, or an offer to buy or sell any security. Always conduct your own due diligence and consult a qualified financial adviser before making any investment decisions.

CELH$24.51

Sign in to see the full analysis

Sign in to see the full analysis

Sign in to see the full analysis

Frequently asked questions about Celsius Holdings Inc.

Other Narrow Moat companies